And until Rome told us to do this, we were going to pretend the cathedral was still in Van Nuys, right? Sheesh! Ruthenians, man up!

Stuart,

Your incredible knack for interjecting inappropriate commentary, as well as your unwillingness to demonstrate either common civility or the genteel and time-honored praxis of allowing others moments of enjoyment, never ceases to amaze.

One does marvel that your sense of order and historical bent has allowed you to forget that, until now, the cathedral was in Van Nuys (or, more properly, Sherman Oaks, as that particular area of the municipality is now named) - and that St Stephen's was, until now, designated a pro-cathedral (together with St Nicholas of Myra in Anchorage).

Many years,

Neil

dear brother Stuart - reading some of your posts is like getting a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Neil,

one can always count on Stuart to provide snarky commentary.

Interestingly, Van Nuys and Sherman Oaks are not incorporated cities or towns, but are neighborhoods within the City of Los Angeles, so even the former eparchial name was a misnomer.

I'm not sure whom Stuart means by "us," but Rome did not tell "us" anything. The Holy Father approved the changes as requested by Bishop Gerald.

I am not sure why Stuart's comment was snarky and hope he explains. The change here is not reflective of anything except good housekeeping. After the North Ridge earthquake in 1994 Bishop George Kuzma moved the eparchial offices from North Ridge to Phoenix and designated St. Stephen's in Phoenix as a pro-cathedral (later St. Nicholas in Anchorage was also designated a pro-cathedral).

Well, for starters, how long has it been since the earthquake rendered the cathedral in Van Nuys unusable? Must be going on sixteen years. Since then, we have maintained the fiction of a "pro-cathedral" in Phoenix, moved the chancery to Phoenix and conducted all eparchial business in Phoenix, but continued to call it the Eparchy of Van Nuys as if there was any hope of rebuilding the old cathedral and moving back there.

The obvious thing to do would be recognizing the facts, declare that the seat of the Eparchy had formally moved to Phoenix, change the letterhead, and raise the principal church in that city to cathedral status--and then let Rome know what we had done. Instead, for sixteen years we maintain the fiction of an eparchy in Van Nuys as though the place had some symbolic importance like Antioch, while waiting for Rome to clear its desk of more pressing business and allowing us to move the see.

Real Churches deal with their pastoral needs like real Churches, and not as though they were mere suffragans of some other Church. The Ruthenians never do.

Amen!

First, a letter could have been sent to the Archeparchy in Pittsburgh laying out the idea of the move. Second the Archbishop could have approved it himself and sent the notice to Rome. The letter should be respectful and imformative about the changes being made, the moving of the See to another area and the changing of the names. Simple and to the point: "we moved the Eparchy and changed it's name, peace out." The Pope has too much on his shoulders worrying about his own branch of the Church.

This is one of the reasons I'm no longer a Byzantine Catholic or a Ruthenian. It is like I belonged to a pretend church, but in reality there was always someone else pulling the strings.

By the way, congrats on the new cathedral and the new name, it is suitable and pleasant to the ears.

Since Stuart continues to use the terms "we" and "us," he, along with the previous eparchs, must know that only the patriarch, with the consent of the synod of bishops, may modify an eparchy and transfer the eparchial see. Since our particular Church is not under the jurisdiction of an Eastern patriarch, the Holy Father acts as such. Whether one likes that arrangement or not is not the question at this time. All I know is that the request was made and it was granted February 6, 2010 and it was effective immediately.

To preserve good order, the Church has enacted canons which are followed in order to modify eparchies and transfer eparchial sees. The eparchial bishop does not act unilaterally.

So our eparchs (George, Wiiliam, and Gerald) did not act in accordance with Stuart's liking and continued to operate a "fictious" eparchy? Apparently his position as a military analyst allows him to tell those in authority over him how they should perform their duties.

The purpose of my post was to share good news with this cyber community. The real tragedy is that there are some who are not able to accept good news.

Well, here's where we differ: I'm not willing to wait around for Rome to get its ecclesiology straight. What we have now does not maintain good order, but results in a sclerotic over-centralization that denigrates the real meaning of Church.

Over the history of the Ruthenian Church in America, our God-loving bishops have continually acted in accordance with the directives of the Church of Rome (except when it interferes with their own preconceptions of what they want to do), and the results are plain for all to see: two schisms and the loss of four fifths of the faithful.

By their fruits shall ye know them.

I think you answered your own question, John. Stuart perceives the change as a reflection of the lack of intestinal fortitude by the Ruthenians and their willingness to roll over and let Rome dictate to them. On the other hand, you see it as simply a matter of good housekeeping. If you are correct, then Stuart's comment is indeed uncalled for and snarky, IMO.

Well, there you again... once you receive the mitra and omophorion from the metropolitan you'll be in a better position to tell the Holy Father how to serve the Church.

As we are about to begin the Great Fast, I am keen to keep the admonition of Thomas a Kempis, "At the Day of Judgment we shall not be asked what we have read but what we have done; not how well we have spoken, but how holy we have lived."

Yes, by their fruits shall ye know them.

So, basically, we of the laity are to pray, pay and obey--and never, ever criticize our betters? I believe that's what got us in trouble in the first place.

Your duty, per the CCEO, is to inform your bishop of your needs, to pray, and to obey, not to be a public scandal.

I do not want to quibble over numbers, but I do not see evidence for saying the Ruthenian
Church in America had a "loss of four fifths of the faithful."

The Hartford Institute for Religious Research estimates the real membership of the
American Carpatho Russian Greek Catholic Diocese of USA to be 20,000 and the Orthodox
Church in American to be 115,000 in the year 2000 (total = 135,000), not all of whom are
Ruthenian Americans. See http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/quick_question17.html

ANNUARIO PONTIFICIO for the year 2000 shows 142,820 members in the Ruthenian Byzantine
Catholic Church in the USA (94,865 in 2008). See Eastern Catholic Churches 2008 in
www.cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat08.pdf

In any case, there were two schisms.

Why the Protection of Mary, instead of the Protection of the "Mother of God"? Just curious. The names "Mary" and "Jesus," when accompanied by no other titles reflecting their importance to us, have increasingly not settled well in my ears. That's why traditionally in the Latin Church saying "Our Lady" and "Our Lord" were encouraged (and still are by many holy priests and layfolk). Names that are said all the time begin to seem overly common to us.

Alexis